Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 116 (Feb)
Neutral Citation: [2014] EWHC 97 (Fam)
Court: Family Division
Judge:

Mr Justice Keehan

Representation RO appeared in person.
  Ruth Cabezo for the authority.
  Richard Hadley for the child.
  The second and TM did not appear and were not represented.
Judgment Dates: 27 January 2014

Catchwords

Adoption - Consent - Parent or guardian - Dispensing with consent - Mother suddenly dying - Applicant father applying for residence order in respect of child, F - Court dismissing that application - Respondent local authority applying for a placement order in respect of F - Authority applying for an adoption order to be made authorising the authority to place F out of the jurisdiction with her maternal aunt and uncle, TM and KM - Father opposing those orders - Father applying for a residence order - Whether it would be in F's best interests to live with her father or to live with TM and KM.

The Case

Adoption Consent. The Family Division dismissed the applicant father's application for a residence order in respect of the fourth respondent child, F. It granted a placement order in favour of the first respondent local authority and, dispensing with the father's consent, an order pursuant to of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 authorising the authority to place F out of the jurisdiction with the maternal aunt and uncle, TM and KM. In the instant case, those orders had been in F's best interests. F's primary need had been for a carer or carers who were able to meet her emotional needs and were able to afford her stable and consistent care throughout her minority. TM and KM could, but the father could not, meet that primary need. Only a placement for adoption with TM and KM would meet F's welfare needs and nothing else would do.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.